Useful Morality Subsystems (Alignment Replacements)

[Faily]

Isn't also destroying the Wall Of The Faithless the plot of Neverwinter Nights 2?

Really, it's fully possible to play characters that defy society, expectations, the cosmos... anything really. It can often be a great story and adventure!

And I agree with OldTrees1 that there is a wide spectrum of Jedi and Sith, where you have Sith who prefer to be in control, or Jedi to struggle with trying to master their emotions. The Star Wars: Old Republic novel Decieved has Jedi Knight Aryn Leneer who is an empath and struggles with controlling her emotions and the emotions she feels from others that influence her in return. Likewise, Palpatine and his master Darth Plagueis in the Plagueis novel aren't really described as being emotional and deeply passionate people. So we have examples of different characters at odds with the dogmas they are affiliated with.

[Lord Raziere]

Thanks. Guess I'm a bit too cynical about what people will accept sometimes.

[Mastikator]

Alignment had pretty much always been a solution in need of a problem.

Dave Arneson had a post on his website (might still be up) how they tried to introduce alignment to make players stop being jerks. The players immediately said "then our characters are chaotic" and that was the end of that failed experiment. Nobody really knows why it appeared in the released product anyway.

Classic. Using game mechanic to fix a player problem.

[Mechalich]

Classic. Using game mechanic to fix a player problem.

In the pre-internet days, players were often thin on the ground and a lot of people at best marginally interested in the game and extremely likely to have their characters engage in immature, deliberately transgressive, pointlessly violent, or otherwise story-inhibiting behavior were dragged into games just to make up a party big enough to actually run adventures (this is hardly a tabletop only thing, pretty much every adult group activity has people brought in simply to meet numbers quotas).

And while in-game carrots and sticks to try and police character behavior by jerkish players is not a good solution or an ideal solution it does work some of the time - especially when carrot heavy - and when attempting to solve the player problem directly would lead to an empty spot not easily filled, well, I can certainly understand why that sort of thing happened a lot. Especially when you consider that, while a large portion of players may be happy to be jerks all the time and just run around causing mayhem in a fictional setting, that type of play tends to leave GMs extremely miserable.

[Batcathat]

In the pre-internet days, players were often thin on the ground and a lot of people at best marginally interested in the game and extremely likely to have their characters engage in immature, deliberately transgressive, pointlessly violent, or otherwise story-inhibiting behavior were dragged into games just to make up a party big enough to actually run adventures (this is hardly a tabletop only thing, pretty much every adult group activity has people brought in simply to meet numbers quotas).

And while in-game carrots and sticks to try and police character behavior by jerkish players is not a good solution or an ideal solution it does work some of the time - especially when carrot heavy - and when attempting to solve the player problem directly would lead to an empty spot not easily filled, well, I can certainly understand why that sort of thing happened a lot. Especially when you consider that, while a large portion of players may be happy to be jerks all the time and just run around causing mayhem in a fictional setting, that type of play tends to leave GMs extremely miserable.

While that might explain the attempt, I don't understand how it was supposed to work since it included alignments that allowed for exactly the kind of behavior it was intended to stop.

[Lord Raziere]

While that might explain the attempt, I don't understand how it was supposed to work since it included alignments that allowed for exactly the kind of behavior it was intended to stop.

Yeah?

Thats kind of the fatal flaw of using it to police player behavior:
GM: "this morality system designates this that these actions are villainous!"
players: "okay cool, this game is now a villainous game, lets kill all the npcs we don't like, steal all the booze and treasure then get it on with a succubus while doing demon drugs".
GM: "but consequences and punishment!"
Players: "We're villains now, we don't care about those."
GM: "I'll make you care by sending forces to kill you!"
Players: "Sweet more Exp! Lets do this even more!"
GM: "Argh!"

[Kane0]

Lol thats exactly the sort of exchange i'd expect to see in Darths & Droids

[Mechalich]

While that might explain the attempt, I don't understand how it was supposed to work since it included alignments that allowed for exactly the kind of behavior it was intended to stop.

The key is gating abilities behind moral mechanics and having those abilities be better than were otherwise available. In 1e and 2e AD&D the Paladin and Ranger were simply better than fighters in basically every way. And good clerics were better than evil ones from an adventuring perspective.

There is a certain class of player who will respond to this kind of incentives, and it's actually really, really common. MMOs use carrot/stick inducements to encourage proper group behavior and disincentive trolling ubiquitously, they just have more effective tools like bonus rewards and timed lockouts.

D&D is saddled with a lot of subsystems that were first attempts to do something that are really effective at what they were trying to do or have become, as the rules have evolved, useless. The creation of Blackguards, for example, took away any value of gating the paladin's awesomeness behind the 'good' alignment door. However, the player base is extremely resistant to change and it has been very difficult to evolve D&D to a more modern framework that takes advantage of nearly 40 years of accumulated understanding of how tabletop gameplay actually works.

Somewhat ironically, the catastrophic failure of 4e to slay sacred cows actually provided 5e with evolutionary space in design because WotC abandoned the idea of the actual tabletop D&D as any kind of profit generator and published the new edition on a comparative shoestring with no expectations.

[Quertus]

It sounds like you only see prescriptive utility in alignment and thus are casting both prescriptive and descriptive alignment as if they were both prescriptive, and then judging them to both be harmful due to the prescriptive elements.

Consider my lich example, I did not go "hmm, they are evil and that informs how they might make certain decisions" instead I went "hmm, they believe they ought to cull the population, I think they are wrong about that.".
1) The lich still used their beliefs as forward facing motivational RP tool.
2) I was still motivated to see the lich follow that philosophy.
3) But alignment only was used in the descriptive context as a judgement / description of the characterization.
Now I did note how they have been behaving as that is a general indicator of how they will likely continue to behave, however that is still just descriptive rather than actually having prescriptive force.

I'm not seeing where the story of your Lich - of a character with different morality being judged by the party - would have been in any way diminished by being run in a system without built-in alignment, like ShadowRun or Mutants and Masterminds.

If alignment is, as people keep claiming, a measure of allegiance to objective cosmic moral forces, isn't it entirely appropriate for a GM to enforce a particular vision of alignment? Since there are actual forces of Law and Good who decide if someone qualifies to be labelled as such.

And deities of Evil and Chaos deciding the same.

I can see now: a desirable soul detects as Lawful Chaotic Good Evil, as the gods fight over it, whereas an undesirable soul detects as Neutral, because none of them are willing to claim it.

I'd accept alignment as useful in this world.

The key is gating abilities behind moral mechanics and having those abilities be better than were otherwise available. In 1e and 2e AD&D the Paladin and Ranger were simply better than fighters in basically every way.

Specialization

increased to hit bonus (meh, AC was bounded)

Increased damage (big)

Increased number of attacks (huge)

Only Fighters could specialize.

Paladins and Rangers leveled slower than Fighters.

So I'm not sure that this is strictly true.

And good clerics were better than evil ones from an adventuring perspective.

This, however, is completely wrong.

2e Clerics had *no limit* on their "control pool". Evil Clerics controlled undead; Good Clerics destroyed them.

Evil Clerics also could create undead.

Evil Clerics win, hands down.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not seeing where the story of your Lich - of a character with different morality being judged by the party - would have been in any way diminished by being run in a system without built-in alignment, like ShadowRun or Mutants and Masterminds.

You missed (possibly by choice of which post to quote) the part about the campaign world (via the GM) also making the judgement (something we can't know IRL but can know in the context of a game). At that point, it is a 1 axis descriptive alignment system. I don't think it needs to be built into the default rules of the game, but it would be in the rules of the campaign.

Also when is the last time you heard a player of Shadowrun comment on the moral character of your character? Some games are actively trying to bring up topics of morality, and others are actively trying to use an amoral lens. That impacts how likely and easily it is to have other players interact with that aspect of the characterization.

That is why I value a built in but completely optional (and maybe off by default going forward?) system. Think about 5E D&D, that system makes it trivial to completely ignore alignment, and yet still includes context and support for those running with alignment.

However, to drag it back to the opening topic, for each usage of alignment, what alternatives can you think of?

• I have explained why the moral axis would reemerge if there is an omniscient PoV able to see the Moral Truth (including if Moral Error Theory is correct). So I mentioned the idea of removing the omniscient PoV and asking the characters relevant moral questions at character creation.
• I have talked about faction systems.
• I have talked about personality quizzes.

What insights do you have on the OP's question?

[Satinavian]

Also when is the last time you heard a player of Shadowrun comment on the moral character of your character? Some games are actively trying to bring up topics of morality, and others are actively trying to use an amoral lens. That impacts how likely and easily it is to have other players interact with that aspect of the characterization.

Actually that happens all the time with all the characters being criminals and not exactly sharing the morality of their own culture but each having their own boundaries that are regularly tested by the jobs available and their tactics and teammates.

I would say i have had far more fruitfull and deep discussions about morality in Shadowrun than i ever had in D&D.

[OldTrees1]

Actually that happens all the time with all the characters being criminals and not exactly sharing the morality of their own culture but each having their own boundaries that are regularly tested by the jobs available and their tactics and teammates.

I would say i have had far more fruitfull and deep discussions about morality in Shadowrun than i ever had in D&D.

Huh, I observed the opposite*. That just goes to show how much this depends on the people involved. Use the tools that work best for the current context (group, campaign, etc).

*In Shadowrun there was talk of boundaries (some were amoral boundaries at that) but nothing deeper. In D&D we talked about necessary and sufficient conditions of moral agency (which is a "slight" bit deeper).

[Segev]

Archetypes are there to be deviated from so that real characters can be made. if every character was the same, we wouldn't be playing people with different names, but constantly just playing Lancelot, Merlin, Robin Hood, Legolas, Frodo and Gimli.

I am not to repeat that which has already been made. Why should I?

And because they're made to be deviated from, a system that supports them is bad? There's an enormous gap between "the system supports this" and "you can't play anything but this."

I think they are suggesting moving those mechanics from the books into the homebrew.

Yes, just like moving the determination of skill DCs to "homebrew" (i.e. the DM has to make them up) made 5e so much better-received than it would have been with even a HINT of suggestions in the PHB or DMG for what actually constitutes a "hard" Dexterity check in terms of actual actions.


Homebrew can ignore alignment rules far more easily than it can make them up out of whole cloth.


Now, wasn't this thread supposed to be on developing ideas for alternate systems that can serve a similar purpose?

[Satinavian]

Now, wasn't this thread supposed to be on developing ideas for alternate systems that can serve a similar purpose?

Yes and a couple of ideas was already mentioned.

But quite a lot of posters don't see use in alignment or any replacement. And those who do actually use alignment don't really want any replacement. So for whom are those alternatives ?


None of the ideas mentioned really got an "Oh, that is something i want to use" reply. So no one feels like developing them further.

[Kane0]

Hey i’m all for hearing about this zodiak morality concept.
We have a bunch of creature types, I can imagine a character born under the sign of the golem or slime or angel and having common mentality with others born around the same time

[Mastikator]

Hey i’m all for hearing about this zodiak morality concept.
We have a bunch of creature types, I can imagine a character born under the sign of the golem or slime or angel and having common mentality with others born around the same time

Now we're talking. "Born under the sign of the golem", now that's some stuff I want on my fantasy character's sheet!

[Lord Raziere]

Now we're talking. "Born under the sign of the golem", now that's some stuff I want on my fantasy character's sheet!

And can be better written towards societies using it as a system having intentionally written rather than unintentionally written injustice, because say if one astrological sign is associated with criminals and the lower class in a culture, people might having a whole self-fulfilling prophecy about it where they end becoming criminals because no one gives them a chance to be anything else. Because generally its better to write a system with built in injustice and how that affects the world rather than trying to say it works perfectly and there are no problems with it.

[Kane0]

And can be better written towards societies using it as a system having intentionally written rather than unintentionally written injustice, because say if one astrological sign is associated with criminals and the lower class in a culture, people might having a whole self-fulfilling prophecy about it where they end becoming criminals because no one gives them a chance to be anything else. Because generally its better to write a system with built in injustice and how that affects the world rather than trying to say it works perfectly and there are no problems with it.

Like it leading to a sort of caste society? The majority of Demon Month characters would tend to be aggressive, impulsive and/or selfish and thus are generally looked down upon regardless of how well they actually deal with their tendencies.

[Quertus]

You missed (possibly by choice of which post to quote) the part about the campaign world (via the GM) also making the judgement (something we can't know IRL but can know in the context of a game). At that point, it is a 1 axis descriptive alignment system. I don't think it needs to be built into the default rules of the game, but it would be in the rules of the campaign.

You've got cause and effect backwards - the part I chose to quote is, in part, because I missed that bit. (I don't know why my player thought that "reading comprehension" would make a great dump stat, but, apparently, they did)

So… the party had an interesting conversation… about morality… trying to play "read the GM's mind"?

Also when is the last time you heard a player of Shadowrun comment on the moral character of your character? Some games are actively trying to bring up topics of morality, and others are actively trying to use an amoral lens. That impacts how likely and easily it is to have other players interact with that aspect of the characterization.

Actually that happens all the time with all the characters being criminals and not exactly sharing the morality of their own culture but each having their own boundaries that are regularly tested by the jobs available and their tactics and teammates.

I would say i have had far more fruitfull and deep discussions about morality in Shadowrun than i ever had in D&D.

Completely agree, @Satinavian. Because there *is* no ham-fisted, monolithic 'truth' built in, everyone has to actually think through their character and actually, you know, roleplay.

And because the game is, by definition, about criminals, that question of "who do you trust?" is kinda central to the gameplay.

Easily way more conducive to good exploration of *character* and *morality* than D&D alignment has ever facilitated, at any table I've been at.

However, to drag it back to the opening topic, for each usage of alignment, what alternatives can you think of?

• I have explained why the moral axis would reemerge if there is an omniscient PoV able to see the Moral Truth (including if Moral Error Theory is correct). So I mentioned the idea of removing the omniscient PoV and asking the characters relevant moral questions at character creation.
• I have talked about faction systems.
• I have talked about personality quizzes.

What insights do you have on the OP's question?

I'm more a "poke at other peoples ideas" kinda guy.

For morality, I explicitly *wouldn't* create a system unless *that explicit shoebox system* was *integral* to the gameplay. "The Force", for instance. No matter how bonkers that morality may be, it is central to the mechanics of *at least* the Jedi / other Force users.

Anything else, I very much would not create such shoehorn systems.

Unless I was making multiple, conflicting systems.

The Verbena have "Detect Good", which detects your connection to nature. The Jedi have "Detect Good", which detects how in control of your emotions you are. The Klingons have "Detect Good", which detects how much Honor you have. The Playground has "Detect Good", which detects how pedantic and good at reading rules you are. The Vampires have "Detect Good", which detects how high up the food chain you are. The Tech Priests have "Detect Good", which detects how respectful to machines you are. And it's the same exact spell.

Basically, think the "Humanity" scales from WoD (or DtD40k7e), but each faction applies them to *everyone else* when evaluating morality. And can only detect their own scale. Because that's what the spell does.

That is why I value a built in but completely optional (and maybe off by default going forward?) system. Think about 5E D&D, that system makes it trivial to completely ignore alignment, and yet still includes context and support for those running with alignment.

Off by default might be better, but… morality just doesn't seem central enough to D&D to be worth including a specific implementation thereof, even optionally.

[OldTrees1]

So… the party had an interesting conversation… about morality… trying to play "read the GM's mind"?

The players had an interesting conversation with the advantage of the omniscient PoV that moral agents lack IRL.
The party had an interesting conversation while lacking that omniscient PoV and having a language barrier.

IRL sometimes people talk about "Assuming moral theory XYZ is correct, then what can we conclude about this situation".

If you use an alignment system where the GM has access to that omniscient PoV, then the game can be similar to one of those discussions (in addition to being a game). Although in practice the GM creates the omniscient PoV rather than having access to it, so sometimes they are also going in with the ability to discover the answer rather than knowing the answer in advance. In those cases it is more like a discussion were a conclusion is reached (which is a nice feeling to have in a game when IRL lacks that conclusion).

This can also apply to metaethical theories. The main question about the lich was about whether they were a moral agent (with a side question about their moral character if they were a moral agent). Again the campaign can either have the GM responsible for there being an answer to these questions (thus giving people access to the omniscient PoV) or the campaign can also blind the GM in this area. It depends on if you want to frame the discussion with that answer being knowable to unknowable.

I'm more a "poke at other peoples ideas" kinda guy.

For morality, I explicitly *wouldn't* create a system unless *that explicit shoebox system* was *integral* to the gameplay. "The Force", for instance. No matter how bonkers that morality may be, it is central to the mechanics of *at least* the Jedi / other Force users.

Anything else, I very much would not create such shoehorn systems.

Unless I was making multiple, conflicting systems.

The Verbena have "Detect Good", which detects your connection to nature. The Jedi have "Detect Good", which detects how in control of your emotions you are. The Klingons have "Detect Good", which detects how much Honor you have. The Playground has "Detect Good", which detects how pedantic and good at reading rules you are. The Vampires have "Detect Good", which detects how high up the food chain you are. The Tech Priests have "Detect Good", which detects how respectful to machines you are. And it's the same exact spell.

Basically, think the "Humanity" scales from WoD (or DtD40k7e), but each faction applies them to *everyone else* when evaluating morality. And can only detect their own scale. Because that's what the spell does.

Interesting, so have "Detect adherence to my philosophic values"? A "Judge Character" spell that is very subjective (but at the faction level so the GM has a chance of answering)? Neat idea for when the moral truth is unknowable. Those are some good examples too.

Honestly that is a good replacement (ignoring the extra work for the GM) for Detect Good in general, regardless of morality system.

You could even have ancient magic items that Detect <unknown> as a way to add flavor.

Off by default might be better, but… morality just doesn't seem central enough to D&D to be worth including a specific implementation thereof, even optionally.

Huh, the genres D&D draws from has a lot of themes of morality in it. So I suspect it is still worth some optional implementation. Maybe selection bias is effecting how central you are viewing it? D&D does have the paladins, heroes, angels, devils, etc. I wonder how many people that use alignment did not bother to come to this thread and post suggestions for a replacement? Probably worth an optional implementation.

[Kane0]

Aight so this zodiak thing, i’ve been thinking

Depending on when you are born you are blessed under the sign of one of the following;
Angel
Demon
Golem
Fairy
Dragon
Titan
Slime
Elemental
Dead
Tree
Beast
Monster

Those born of each month tend to possess shared personality traits (before adjusting for other factors like race, culture, magical influence, you know all the other parts of the whole nature vs nurture thing). I’ve yet to write down which go where but for example Dragon sign creatures tend to be rather commanding and resistant to self esteem issues and but also carry high standards they dont drop. In fact most if not all signs will have multiple subcategories that may or may not be self-contradictory (eg sign of the dragon has chromatic and metallic which differ among some personality trends).

Now preserving the precious rule of threes, each month generally gets along really well with two others and really badly with three others. If you care about approximating the popular great wheel cosmology these four groups of three will roughly agree on what they consider heaven and hell to be like which makes for 8 outer planes not counting any limbos and whatnot these groups might consider.

Regarding afterlives, priority is given to the deity that may claim to an individual followed by the plane that most closely represents ideals they feel strongest about (dominance, liberty, self-sufficiency, altruism, etc).

Importantly, your sign/omen is a factor only of nature, not nurture, and is variable in strength from person to person and at different times (and even location). Like the lunar cycle some will experience the aspects of their sign more strongly at various times during the year, and at varying strengths overall depending on the exact circumstances of their birth (eg the apex of each month making for stronger-signed individuals).

Thus the label scribbed on your character sheet is not uniform and best applied as a descriptor of inclination rather than concrete behaviour pattern in regards to players.

Sidenote, i found something online defining five cornerstones of personality that may be better than the good old (wrong) meyers briggs: openness to new things (or not), consciensciousness (or spontanaeity), intraversion/extraversion, agreeableness (compassion, empathy, etc) and neuroticism (or emotional stability). Not sure if that is a current theory but probably worth something to draw traits from.

[Jorren]

While that might explain the attempt, I don't understand how it was supposed to work since it included alignments that allowed for exactly the kind of behavior it was intended to stop.

I had heard that the reasoning was partly that the availability of alignment detection systems would allow the good aligned characters a 'heads up' as to who they were adventuring with and therefore a fair chance to defend themselves. Given the philosophy behind the game in the early days my guess would be a fair chance was deemed sufficient, as opposed to mechanisms designed to discourage the behavior.

[Faily]

Aight so this zodiak thing, i’ve been thinking

Depending on when you are born you are blessed under the sign of one of the following;
Angel
Demon
Golem
Fairy
Dragon
Titan
Slime
Elemental
Dead
Tree
Beast
Monster

Those born of each month tend to possess shared personality traits (before adjusting for other factors like race, culture, magical influence, you know all the other parts of the whole nature vs nurture thing). I’ve yet to write down which go where but for example Dragon sign creatures tend to be rather commanding and resistant to self esteem issues and but also carry high standards they dont drop. In fact most if not all signs will have multiple subcategories that may or may not be self-contradictory (eg sign of the dragon has chromatic and metallic which differ among some personality trends).

Now preserving the precious rule of threes, each month generally gets along really well with two others and really badly with three others. If you care about approximating the popular great wheel cosmology these four groups of three will roughly agree on what they consider heaven and hell to be like which makes for 8 outer planes not counting any limbos and whatnot these groups might consider.

Regarding afterlives, priority is given to the deity that may claim to an individual followed by the plane that most closely represents ideals they feel strongest about (dominance, liberty, self-sufficiency, altruism, etc).

Importantly, your sign/omen is a factor only of nature, not nurture, and is variable in strength from person to person and at different times (and even location). Like the lunar cycle some will experience the aspects of their sign more strongly at various times during the year, and at varying strengths overall depending on the exact circumstances of their birth (eg the apex of each month making for stronger-signed individuals).

Thus the label scribbed on your character sheet is not uniform and best applied as a descriptor of inclination rather than concrete behaviour pattern in regards to players.

Sidenote, i found something online defining five cornerstones of personality that may be better than the good old (wrong) meyers briggs: openness to new things (or not), consciensciousness (or spontanaeity), intraversion/extraversion, agreeableness (compassion, empathy, etc) and neuroticism (or emotional stability). Not sure if that is a current theory but probably worth something to draw traits from.

I like the idea behind this, and you could probably do something that each Sign has both virtues and flaws associated with them. If you don't want to use Zodiac, you could also do something with Major Arcana in the Tarot or similar ideas. Or even throw in elements in like in the Chinese Zodiac to shake it up even further, as a secondary nature type of thing.

But I think the biggest problem I'd have with a Sign to decide Morality is that it doesn't seem to have room for changing one's Morality? In D&D, an Evil person can become Good, or a Good person can become Evil (both which often serve as big story-pivots). Just like in RL where people can learn to grow and change, D&D and similar games leave it open for change to happen to the character. How much change would be possible within the scope of the Zodiac-Morality? Are you restricted to the Sign you were born under or is it something that can change?

[Kane0]

But I think the biggest problem I'd have with a Sign to decide Morality is that it doesn't seem to have room for changing one's Morality? In D&D, an Evil person can become Good, or a Good person can become Evil (both which often serve as big story-pivots). Just like in RL where people can learn to grow and change, D&D and similar games leave it open for change to happen to the character. How much change would be possible within the scope of the Zodiac-Morality? Are you restricted to the Sign you were born under or is it something that can change?

You could implement something like the atonement spell or similar ritual to change it, though for the most part I wouldn't imagine it to be necessary. Sign wouldn't be the thing you can point to and say 'this is what makes X a good/bad person', it's portion of what makes a person. You could have someone born under the sign of the golem and exhibit the expected methodical, level behaviour but you could also have someone under the sign of the demon that is not as selfish and impulsive as would be considered 'typical'.

Point being, sign alone doesn't make you a certain kind of person, it simply leans you in certain directions. It shouldn't be used to define heroes and villains. I suppose you could say that this is more a personality indicator than moral one.

[Mastikator]

I like the idea behind this, and you could probably do something that each Sign has both virtues and flaws associated with them. If you don't want to use Zodiac, you could also do something with Major Arcana in the Tarot or similar ideas. Or even throw in elements in like in the Chinese Zodiac to shake it up even further, as a secondary nature type of thing.

But I think the biggest problem I'd have with a Sign to decide Morality is that it doesn't seem to have room for changing one's Morality? In D&D, an Evil person can become Good, or a Good person can become Evil (both which often serve as big story-pivots). Just like in RL where people can learn to grow and change, D&D and similar games leave it open for change to happen to the character. How much change would be possible within the scope of the Zodiac-Morality? Are you restricted to the Sign you were born under or is it something that can change?

The major point of using a star sign instead of alignment is that they aren't associated with morality, they're associated with personality traits, magical forces and destiny. Golem isn't good or bad, the person born under the sign of the golem is. You don't have to change your star sign to change your morality from good to evil.

[Cluedrew]

I actually abandoned the thread for a while because I thought it was going down hill. Turns out that was premature.

So… the party had an interesting conversation… about morality… trying to play "read the GM's mind"?

Why don't you just ask them? I mean they are there at the table right?

Personally I think alignment tries to do too much, but unfortunately the demands of D&D's kitchen sink nature more or less demand that it do so. [...] honestly alignment's a lot better than it has any right to be.

Which, building off of Segev's reminder is another issue. I think a system has to be tuned for the setting and/or campaign pitch and D&D doesn't have either of those. So you can't tune anything for them and you can highlight important parts of a character with them. One could actually make a setting/campaign where this 2 axis morality is very relevant. But I have no urge to so instead I am just going to leave another four descriptive terms in my box. Also sometimes even describing why a character doesn't cleanly fit into the alignment system can be useful.

Also I really like the zodiac personality system people are cooking up. It could be a cool addition. And for what its worth although it isn't really about morality I think it is an "alignment replacement" in that it provides some broad descriptions of your character. One you could use anywhere but would probably be best suited

Actually the biggest morality system I ever made (for a homebrew that never got off the ground) was similar in that it had more to do with personality (and preferred profession) than good or evil. There were four (or five) paths people can follow and are seen as the ways you can improve yourself and contribute to society. They also have codes of dress, the professions that are seen as the embodiment of that path and so many stereo types. But all of that is cultural, role-playing only. The only mechanical part is the stat bonuses they grant (and explicate supernatural abilities four grant).

That four/five difference was interesting because mechanically there are just five options. But culturally they aren't universal across the setting and the four with active components are relatively stable but the fifth can going from being basically an equal to the other four all the way to is not recognised at all.

[Faily]

You could implement something like the atonement spell or similar ritual to change it, though for the most part I wouldn't imagine it to be necessary. Sign wouldn't be the thing you can point to and say 'this is what makes X a good/bad person', it's portion of what makes a person. You could have someone born under the sign of the golem and exhibit the expected methodical, level behaviour but you could also have someone under the sign of the demon that is not as selfish and impulsive as would be considered 'typical'.

Point being, sign alone doesn't make you a certain kind of person, it simply leans you in certain directions. It shouldn't be used to define heroes and villains. I suppose you could say that this is more a personality indicator than moral one.

The Atonement-suggestion an interesting idea. It puts a significant marker on changing one's "nature" so to speak, by undergoing a sacred ritual to begin upon a new path and a real committment.

[Satinavian]

Interesting, so have "Detect adherence to my philosophic values"? A "Judge Character" spell that is very subjective (but at the faction level so the GM has a chance of answering)? Neat idea for when the moral truth is unknowable. Those are some good examples too.

I have seen such spells in a game recently. They were called variants of "detect traitor" and mostly used by the magical secret police. Their origin was demonic and they were sponsored by some demon lord of tyranny and would obviously work very well if someone wanted to establish one. The users generally had far more benevolent motives but there were some cults ative trying to infiltrate the society and using dark rituals to sacrifice huge portions of the population so there was motivation to use the spell despite its origin.
Of course the spells did never explain what exactly the mismatch in the worldview was, only that one existed.

[Nifft]

The Atonement-suggestion an interesting idea. It puts a significant marker on changing one's "nature" so to speak, by undergoing a sacred ritual to begin upon a new path and a real committment.

Nameless One: "What can change the nature of a man?"

Astrology Cleric: "One hour and fifty bucks cash."

[Lord Raziere]

Nameless One: "What can change the nature of a man?"

Astrology Cleric: "One hour and fifty bucks cash."

Really I'd house rule this kind of thing so it can't be memed like this. One of the biggest problems of DnDs alignment system is the normalization and mundanization of its implications so that all becomes a dumb meme.